[ASLML] DC residual

[Bruce Bakken]

>
> >The Collateral Attack does not leave Residual FP, but the original attack
> >versus the AFV does.
>
>No, Bruce.  There *is* no "original attack".  There is only the attack
>targeting the AFV, which can also make a Specific Collateral Attack.
>

... the attack targeting the AFV can also leave Residual FP.

Assume that there are no Vulnerable PRC.  Are you claiming that any attack 
pre-designated versus an AFV may not leave Residual FP?

If this is your claim, it is so clearly at odds with A8.2 that you will have 
to show me something other than D.8 to back it up.

> >When a vehicle is pre-designated as the attack, we know that no other 
>unit
> >is affected by that attack.  Likewise, no other unit than the PRC are
> >affected by a Specific Collateral Attack.
> >
> >This has no bearing on the Residual FP left by the original 
>pre-designated
> >attack.
>
>Without the attack vs. the AFV, there is *no* "original attack".  There is
>*only* the attack vs. the pre-designated target.
>

The attack versus the AFV is the "original attack" I am talking about!

> >See the D.8 EX on page D2 [2nd Ed] for an example of ordnance TH striking
> >the vehicle, making a TK DR, and leaving (ROF dependent) Residual FP.
>
>I believe that EX is in error.  It doesn't gibe with what D.8 actually 
>says.
>(The EX is talking about a MG making a TH/TK attempt, so it uses the 
>"Vehicle
>Target Type" line of the Collateral Attack Table, not the "MG" line; that 
>is a
>Specific Collateral Attack, which leaves no Residual; the original TH/TK
>attack can't leave Residual either, because no IFT FP was being used!)
>

I believe you are in error, and do not fully understand the mechanics of 
Collateral Attack.

Look again in D.8: "A Collateral Attack (whether General or Specific) is 
resolved as a *separate attack vs the vehicle's Vulnerable PRC* immediately 
subsequent to the resolution of the *attack vs the vehicle*..."  (My 
italics.)

Can you see that there are two events described here?  The first event that 
occurs is the "attack vs the vehicle".  This could occur in any number of 
ways.  Then, if necessary the second event is the "attack vs the vehicle's 
Vulnerable PRC", made *after* resolution of the attack versus the vehicle.  
If there are no Vulnerable PRC, or if the vehicle is destroyed, this second 
event does not occur.

Now transposing this to the last sentence of D.8, the second event 
(Collateral Attack vs Vulnerable PRC) does not leave Residual FP.  That's 
all it says.  I.e., the writers want us to make sure that we don't treat 
this "separate attack" as sufficient for placing an addition Residual FP 
counter in the Location.

The first event (the attack vs the vehicle) leaves Residual FP normally as 
per A8.2, and nothing in D.8 changes that.

Here's the test for Residual FP:
1. Has a unit been attacked by Defensive First Fire?  Yes; proceed.
2. Does the attack include a TK DR?  Yes; proceed.
3. Is the TK DR from non-MG AP, ATR, APCR, APDS or a Dud?  No; proceed.
4. Place Residual FP in the Location in which the attack is resolved.

It's so easy to follow and figure out, it's painful.

A Collateral Attack (the "subsequent" attack *after* the vehicle is 
attacked) does not leave Residual FP.  But the attack versus the AFV 
(resolved *prior* to the Collateral Attack) does leave Residual FP.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

_________________________________________________________________
Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN 
Premium! 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/